With the Senate finance Committee version of the health care bill coming up for floor debate and vote soon, it seems that the senior Democract leadership does not want to post the bill on line 72 hours before the vote, nor do they want other Senators to be able to read the bill before voting on it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):With the Senate finance Committee version of the health care bill coming up for floor debate and vote soon, it seems that the senior Democract leadership does not want to post the bill on line 72 hours before the vote, nor do they want other Senators to be able to read the bill before voting on it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
If I was a Senator or Representative, I would vote no on every bill if we were not allowed to see the bill in advance, if this was really true.

Not only is it true, but the bill will be voted on the "English Language" version, not the final legal-language version. That's like signing a contract based on simply reading the preamble, and assuming that everything else behind it reflects only what's in the preamble. The Dems in congress tell us that the legal version "takes too long to write up" and "it will be done later".

Of course it is the legal language version which will be the binding one. This gives the staffers free reign to put in pretty much whatever they like, after the bill is voted.

I can find no excuse for this. Congress should not vote on anything but the one and only final, binding version of a bill.

I think the online reporting procredure vote is a good idea,
but the 72 hours is not a rule of parlimentary procedure. It has to be voted on.

The timing is suspect. As the article points out, it seems directly aimed at the health Bill, instead of past Bills that have had the benefit of time.

That all being said, I think the laws should have a week of soak time. It allows everyone to read, respond, and adjust to the full intent of the law. I think 72 hours , even in this advanced world of speed reading and analysis is too short. I think the public should have the ability to read and understand what their representatives are voiting on.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):Congress should not vote on anything but the one and only final, binding version of a bill.

That would require some quite radical restructuring of our constitutional arrangements, since both houses of Congress are entitled to write their own bills, then have the differences reconciled in conference.

You could theoretically start with having the same bill introduced into the appropriate committee, but since each house could amend the bill separately, both in committee and through floor amendments, you'd still get two separate versions that have to be reconciled at the end.

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 6):That would require some quite radical restructuring of our constitutional arrangements, since both houses of Congress are entitled to write their own bills, then have the differences reconciled in conference.

And the final version after reconciliation should be voted on again. If that requires an amendment, I'm fine with that. I am not fine with the idea that something like the Public Option can be removed, the bill voted on and potentially passed, and the Public Option put back in afterwards.

Both the House and Senate have different rules that allow how amandments are attached to the bills.

In the House, for example, a Congressman can insert his/her amendment at 3 am on a Saturday morning, being the only person in the chamber. He/she can then call for an immediate vote (if he is a memeber of that committee), and pass the amendment with a vote on one "aye" and no "nays". The more sleezy ones do this all the time.

What they are trying to hide, in my utmost humble opinion, is their inability to find a way to pay for it and the ultimate goal of the legislation. We all know what the ultimate intent of the bill is...single payer, government option. Oh, this bill may not have it, but the seeds will be planted in it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):And the final version after reconciliation should be voted on again.

I absolutely agree with this. The bill can change radically in reconcilliation.

Now, that having been said, we do live in a representative republic, not a democracy. I don't think that every bill that goes before Congress needs to 'soak' for a week or 72 hours or whatever. Way too cumbersome and, as much as it pains me to say it, we do have to trust these folks, a little. But bills that will have a major impact on the way we live and do business (Stimulus, Cap & Trade, Healthcare reform, etc.): yeah, the People and the Members need to be able to read and understand. The People need time to comment and let their Congress-folks know what's on their mind.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):but the bill will be voted on the "English Language" version

You know, I've never heard that before. Need to look into it, but if it's true, it is also unacceptable. The version voted on, should be the version enacted. Unfortunately, that means the one written in 'legalese'.

What they are trying to hide, in my utmost humble opinion, is their inability to find a way to pay for it and the ultimate goal of the legislation. We all know what the ultimate intent of the bill is...single payer, government option. Oh, this bill may not have it, but the seeds will be planted in it.

No, we also need to know what exactly is in the bill, and how exactly it will effect each of us. But, you are partioally right, they don't know how to pay for it and just want to shove the bill and the costs down our throats.

Of course they are .... its called public option ,socialized medicine, universal health care or whatever. Its in the bill ... no question about it its the liberals holy grail. God only knows what is in that monster ... and the liberals would support it no matter what. Anything could be in it and the libs would support it , they would have too because they are not reading it either. Its just a win for the President and they know he needs it ... so I hope they all vote for it ..every single dem let it be there legacy I guess.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):And the final version after reconciliation should be voted on again.

It is voted on again - if a bill is passed in different versions in the House and the Senate and then sent to a conference committee, the reconciled version has to be passed by both houses.

Not all bills go this route - sometimes one house will pass a bill, the other house will amend it, and then the amended bill goes back to the first house and is passed there. But for major bills, the conference committee system pretty much comes into play.

But either way, before a bill can go to the President for signature or veto, it must pass both houses in an identical form.

One of the great frustrations of the conference committee system is that the committee can put things in that weren't in either original bill - Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear."

I'm not that worried about what the Senate votes on - it's part of the making of the sausage.

At some point there will be a need to bring the Senate and House Bills together. Because of the partisanship attached to improving health care in this country I wouldn't be surprised to see reconciliation used. Worked for Bush's tax cuts so it should work for health care.

In the end I believe we will have improvements.

More people will receive care.

Maybe there will be a reduction in medical bankruptcies - there sure should be.

There won't be any death panels. Health insurance companies will scream, but still make money and the Medicare will still be there.

But we might actually have a situation where people who don't have insurance now because they are the rejects will be able to get care, get it earlier and get it cheaper.

Maybe every kid will receive the care they need without being placed into an economic grouping - just to receive the care.

Maybe some of our friends here, like DocLightening, will be able to post how he's able to treat kids without the blessings of an insurance company - and let us know how great it feels.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):Death panels, mandatory RFID bracelets, and H1N1 vaccines that are actually nanorobots that alter your brain to turn you into a worker drone.

Quoting Casinterest (Reply 5):I think the public should have the ability to read and understand what their representatives are voiting on.

No Way! Don't you know anything about politics?
A successful elected representative always feeds the News media and now Twitter skewed information so that their reactionary constituents will cast votes based on hearsay rather than reason. And then hopefully lose the next election and retire with full pay. Pretty sweet, no?

All kidding aside, the real reason for withholding the bill is that they don't want to deal with the flood of irate phone calls and emails no more than 72 hours before the vote. And hopefully a lot of people won't catch on until it's too late.